Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:40:49 02/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2002 at 05:13:19, Ed Schröder wrote: >On February 14, 2002 at 04:29:09, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 14, 2002 at 03:12:14, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On February 14, 2002 at 02:46:36, Slater Wold wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>My main thinking here is: >>>> >>>>Rebel will more than likely win 75% of its games against Crafty in the 40/120. >>>>Now if Crafty can beat Rebel 75% of the time in the 40/12000, what does that >>>>show? That Crafty is "rebel strength" when given a 100x time odds? Or that >>>>simply HW = chess program performance? Well, I think all that will be >>>>determined in the moves in makes in the time odds games. >>>> >>>>Little Goliath vs Shredder was something that GCP suggested. LG is extremly >>>>fast, and from what I understand, not overly complex. Shredder on the other >>>>hand is as slow as they come, and again, from what I understand, very complex. >>>> >>>>Does MHZ = ELO. And if it does, how much? Imagine the stink if Rebel were to >>>>win 75% in 40/120 and 75% in 40/12000. >>> >>>I am guessing that Rebel is about 100 ELO stronger than crafty. I also believe >>>(on scanty evidence based on the chess in 2010 experiment) that the advantage >>>vanishes at very long time control. >> >>I agree that the difference is probably more closer to 100 elo than 200 elo but >>I do not believe that the difference vanishes at long time control. >> >>I believe that it was truth in the past because Rebel had search holes because >>of it's selective search algorithm but I guess that Ed improved his program from >>that time. > >I have a different view. In those days Crafy was a weak positional player while >Rebel was a much more polished and tuned engine. I still hold my claim the Rebel >of that time could beat the Crafty of that time even if Crafty was given 100 x >more time. > >It was only one game, but just have a look at the game itself, it proved what I >was saying all the time: having a good eval is worth many plies. I think that one game is not enough. > >Looking at nowadays Crafty I see a much better tuned engine, it would be silly >to lengthen my claim. > >Ed My point was not the history games of old Crafty against Rebel but the claim of Dann corbit that Crafty is probably relativeluy better at long time based on chess in 2010. I know that Crafty16.6 (if I remember correctly) beated Rebel in chess in 2010 but I guess that the problem of Rebel at that time was some pruning of Rebel(I remember that Rebel simply failed in tactics against Crafty at least in one of these games) I guess that today it is not going to happen. when I say that I believe that you improved your program from that time I meant to the time of chess in 2010 and not to the time of the match of older rebel against Crafty12.xx Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.